I am writing to urge the NSW Government to reconsider the proposed development on the Cooks River waterfront.
The planning documents describe this site as being of "low importance". That assessment fundamentally undervalues one of the last remaining publicly accessible blue-green spaces in southern Sydney with genuine potential for ecological restoration.
It also flies in the face of the substantial work already being undertaken by the Cooks River Alliance, local councils and Sydney Water to restore the health of the Cooks River. Together, these organisations have recognised that the river is an asset worth investing in, not an industrial afterthought.
The Cooks River is the most polluted river in New South Wales, but that is precisely why it deserves greater protection and restoration. It provides vital habitat, walking and cycling connections, recreation, and open space for communities stretching from southern Sydney through the Inner West and beyond. Every opportunity to improve public access and river health should be embraced.
This site is also the gateway to Sydney, adjoining our international airport. Rather than creating an attractive and accessible riverfront that reflects a modern, liveable city, the current proposal would add another large-scale logistics facility and a data centre with limited visual appeal, reducing opportunities for public access and blocking the future potential for riverfront parkland.
Around the world, cities are recognising the value of restoring their rivers. Former industrial waterfronts are being transformed into thriving public spaces because governments understand that healthy waterways are essential infrastructure that improves community wellbeing, biodiversity and climate resilience. Sydney should be leading this movement, not repeating planning decisions that other cities are now working to reverse.
Nobody disputes that Sydney needs logistics facilities and data centres. They are important pieces of infrastructure that support our economy. However, good planning means locating this infrastructure in appropriate places while protecting irreplaceable public green space and riverfront land.
There are also long-term resilience considerations.
The proposed site is located within a flood-prone area and will face increasing flood risks as climate change intensifies. Decisions made today will shape Sydney for generations, and we should ensure they are based on long-term public benefit rather than short-term convenience.
The Cooks River should be recognised as a protected public asset. This proposal represents one of the last opportunities to restore this stretch of river for public enjoyment and environmental recovery.
I urge the NSW Government to reconsider this proposal and place greater value on the long-term environmental, social and recreational importance of the Cooks River.

Many of us live, work and play in the Cooks River catchment - we ride our bikes and walk our dogs along the cycleway, we do bushcare to increase tree canopy to keep our suburbs cool, we pick up rubbish in the streets to stop it getting into the river. In short, we love this river and we want the best for its future. We are deeply concerned that climate impacts are accelerating and that decisions made today will shape the future health and resilience of the Cooks River.
I oppose the redevelopment of the site according to the proposal from Stockland and John Boyd Properties and urge the Department of Planning to reject the proposal as it stands. I request that the proponents be required to rethink the project in line with the following points.
1. Genuine community engagement and transparent consideration of alternatives
Community engagement to date has been inadequate and inconsistent with the NSW Government’s Undertaking Engagement Guidelines for State Significant Developments (March 2026), which require engagement proportionate to the scale and impact of the project.
The Stakeholder Consultation Report incorrectly claims that local environmental and conservation groups were consulted. No discussion have taken place with groups such as Wolli Creek Preservation Society and the Cooks River Valley Association. A project of this magnitude must not proceed without meaningful, early, and ongoing engagement, including transparent exploration of alternative land‑use options.
2. Realistic assessment of climate‑driven sea level rise and flood risk
Modelling for predicted sea level rise by the end of this century shows that the blue area in the following map will be underwater at high tide. This includes the entirety of the proposed development's footprint.
Modelling for sea level rise indicates that the entire footprint of the proposed development will be inundated at high tide by 2100. Even under current (2026) conditions, the site is highly vulnerable to storm surges and compound events (high tide + onshore winds + low pressure + heavy rain).
The proposal does not demonstrate how these hazards will be mitigated or how the development will remain viable under projected climate conditions. This is a critical omission.
I remind the Department of the NSW Climate Change Adaptation Strategy (2022) which requires:
protecting green infrastructure
reducing heat exposure
improving flood resilience
The proposal increases heat exposure and places critical infrastructure in a flood‑vulnerable zone.
3. A credible pathway to Net Zero operation
Data centres are among the fastest‑growing sources of electricity demand globally. While rooftop solar is welcome, the proposal must include an enforceable commitment to Net Zero operational emissions, including:
Full electrification of the site (no gas connections).
On‑site large‑scale battery storage to avoid peak‑demand grid stress.
Prohibition of diesel backup generators due to air quality, emissions, and noise impacts on nearby communities.
Without these requirements, the development risks significantly increasing NSW’s emissions profile.
4. A substantial contribution to restoring the Cooks River
At approximately $2.9 billion, this is one of the largest developments ever proposed on the Cooks River.
Many major developments contribute towards local community infrastructure. A development of this scale should include a dedicated contribution towards restoring and enhancing the health of the Cooks River, supported through a meaningful developer contribution, to invest in long-term improvements to the river such as:
● Establishing a Cooks River Keeper or similar stewardship organisation to coordinate restoration and long-term management.
● Regular intensive river clean-up and maintenance programs.
● Replacing ageing sheet piling with naturalised riverbanks.
● Restoration of saltmarsh, mangroves and other important habitats.
● Water quality improvement projects and stormwater treatment.
● Improved walking, cycling and paddling access.
● Community education and environmental monitoring.
This development should leave a positive environmental legacy for future generations.
5. Sustainable water use
The extensive roof area should be used not only for solar generation but also for rainwater harvesting to meet the substantial water demands of the data centre. This must be a condition of consent.
Large‑scale hard‑surface development increases runoff and insurance costs for nearby communities. Water Sensitive Urban Design principles need to be better applied to this development.
6. A minimum 100 metre riparian corridor with naturalisation of the river edge
A continuous minimum 100 metre riparian corridor should be provided along the full river frontage, measured from the high-water mark.
This would improve biodiversity, allow for large trees to shade the public access, strengthen climate resilience, provide greater flood protection, improve water quality and create a far more attractive public waterfront. The sight of a 70m high wall towering over the edge of the river is unacceptable.
The development should include a commitment to naturalise the riverbank, replacing hard engineered edges with vegetation and habitat wherever feasible, while improving public access and ecological health.
7. Early delivery of public access and open space
The cycleway, walking paths, open space and public access to the river mentioned as part of this proposal are supported, but they should be delivered early in the project rather than being deferred until the final stages. They must be designed for best practice outdoor activation, not just an unshaded strip of concrete.
Communities should begin benefiting from the development from the outset, not be made to wait until all the buildings are completed.
8. Biodiversity protection and habitat enhancement
Existing native vegetation on the golf course must not be cleared unless it is necessary for the development. The areas earmarked for community access and parkland must retain established trees.
What noise and lighting impacts will there be on birds and bats in the vicinity? Has there been expert advice on the magnitude of this, and on potential mitigation measures proposed?
The new parkland must be designed to have zones dedicated to conservation and natural habitat – it must not just be mown grass with a few trees. There must be increased tree canopy in the public park area to enable reaching the NSW Government’s commitment for higher canopy to deal with urban heating. Bayside LGA has one of the lowest canopy covers in Sydney. This is a major climate‑risk factor.

Conclusion
I recognise this piece of riverfront open space on the Cooks River presents a rare and significant opportunity for Sydney and the local community. A development of this scale should set a benchmark for river‑sensitive urban design and climate‑aligned data centre development. The current proposal does not meet that standard.
I urge the Department of Planning to reject the proposal and require a redesign that delivers lasting environmental, recreational, and community benefits alongside economic development.
The EIS claims the project will “set new standards for scale, efficiency, sustainability and innovation.” In its current form, it does not. Please do not allow it to proceed without the recommended changes.
Thank you for considering my submission.

I am writing to urge the NSW Government to reconsider the proposed development on the Cooks River waterfront.
The planning documents describe this site as being of "low importance". That assessment fundamentally undervalues one of the last remaining publicly accessible blue-green spaces in southern Sydney with genuine potential for ecological restoration.
It also flies in the face of the substantial work already being undertaken by the Cooks River Alliance, local councils and Sydney Water to restore the health of the Cooks River. Together, these organisations have recognised that the river is an asset worth investing in, not an industrial afterthought.
The Cooks River is the most polluted river in New South Wales, but that is precisely why it deserves greater protection and restoration. It provides vital habitat, walking and cycling connections, recreation, and open space for communities stretching from southern Sydney through the Inner West and beyond. Every opportunity to improve public access and river health should be embraced.
This site is also the gateway to Sydney, adjoining our international airport. Rather than creating an attractive and accessible riverfront that reflects a modern, liveable city, the current proposal would add another large-scale logistics facility and a data centre with limited visual appeal, reducing opportunities for public access and blocking the future potential for riverfront parkland.
Around the world, cities are recognising the value of restoring their rivers. Former industrial waterfronts are being transformed into thriving public spaces because governments understand that healthy waterways are essential infrastructure that improves community wellbeing, biodiversity and climate resilience. Sydney should be leading this movement, not repeating planning decisions that other cities are now working to reverse.
Nobody disputes that Sydney needs logistics facilities and data centres. They are important pieces of infrastructure that support our economy. However, good planning means locating this infrastructure in appropriate places while protecting irreplaceable public green space and riverfront land.
There are also long-term resilience considerations.
The proposed site is located within a flood-prone area and will face increasing flood risks as climate change intensifies. Decisions made today will shape Sydney for generations, and we should ensure they are based on long-term public benefit rather than short-term convenience.
The Cooks River should be recognised as a protected public asset. This proposal represents one of the last opportunities to restore this stretch of river for public enjoyment and environmental recovery.
I urge the NSW Government to reconsider this proposal and place greater value on the long-term environmental, social and recreational importance of the Cooks River.

I am beyond disappointed in the NSW Government. I urge you all to reconsider the proposed development on the Cooks River waterfront.
The planning documents describe this site as being of "low importance". That assessment fundamentally undervalues one of the last remaining publicly accessible blue-green spaces in southern Sydney with genuine potential for ecological restoration.
It also flies in the face of the substantial work already being undertaken by the Cooks River Alliance, local councils and Sydney Water to restore the health of the Cooks River. Together, these organisations have recognised that the river is an asset worth investing in, not an industrial afterthought.
The Cooks River is the most polluted river in New South Wales, but that is precisely why it deserves greater protection and restoration. It provides vital habitat, walking and cycling connections, recreation, and open space for communities stretching from southern Sydney through the Inner West and beyond. Every opportunity to improve public access and river health should be embraced.
This site is also the gateway to Sydney, adjoining our international airport. Rather than creating an attractive and accessible riverfront that reflects a modern, liveable city, the current proposal would add another large-scale logistics facility and a data centre with limited visual appeal, reducing opportunities for public access and blocking the future potential for riverfront parkland.
Around the world, cities are recognising the value of restoring their rivers. Former industrial waterfronts are being transformed into thriving public spaces because governments understand that healthy waterways are essential infrastructure that improves community wellbeing, biodiversity and climate resilience. Sydney should be leading this movement, not repeating planning decisions that other cities are now working to reverse.
Nobody disputes that Sydney needs logistics facilities and data centres. They are important pieces of infrastructure that support our economy. However, good planning means locating this infrastructure in appropriate places while protecting irreplaceable public green space and riverfront land.
There are also long-term resilience considerations.
The proposed site is located within a flood-prone area and will face increasing flood risks as climate change intensifies. Decisions made today will shape Sydney for generations, and we should ensure they are based on long-term public benefit rather than short-term convenience.
The Cooks River should be recognised as a protected public asset. This proposal represents one of the last opportunities to restore this stretch of river for public enjoyment and environmental recovery.
I urge the NSW Government to reconsider this proposal and place greater value on the long-term environmental, social and recreational importance of the Cooks River.

I am writing to object the proposed plan and construction of a data centre on the Cooks River for the following reasons:
• Excessive energy consumption and strain
• Excessive and wasteful water usage
• Noise pollution
• Massive emissions
• Permanent damage to the environment including disruption to local wildlife cycles
• An industrial site will not give public access to space
Please see attached document for more information.

I strongly object to the proposal of an AI data centre at the Kograh Golf Club. Other centres like this have repeatedly proven to be extremely harmful to the surrounding environment. The Cooks River is already polluted, we do not need to make it worse. Does the government even care about anything other than making money? These centres are very loud, which impacts both wildlife and humans. The buildings are ugly and make spaces uninviting. We don't have to contribute to the rise of AI. We need to fight against it, and building more data centres does the exact opposite. Whatever happened to being human? It doesn't have to be this way. We don't need more technology. Take a minute to think about the impact this will have on future generations. I am 19 years old. I have my entire life ahead of me, but the increasing use of unnecessary AI and technology has horrible effects on our planet and contributes to global warming, which makes me wonder what my life will look like in even 5 years, let alone 20 years in the future. But here I am, trying to make a difference. I walk along the Cooks River often. I would hate to see a giant data centre placed along the river. Please consider how this impacts locals and the environment. Think about something other than making money and storing data, and maybe have some empathy for real life.

I object to this development. Its is completely oversized for the space and community will lose access to the river and even the view of the river.
Data centres are potentially damaging to the environment with high use of water and electricity.
The whole development is oversized and will bring considerable traffic and more impacts on local amenities.
There is little open space thats accessible to the river and this should be for the community and not corporations.
There is so much development in the area and we need to ensure that open space is kept for public use.

Hi,
My name is Shaheen and I live near the Cooks River. I am concerned that the new proposed development will be a detriment to the surrounding environment and communities and it may further pollute the waterways and not be actually beneficial to the local community and its needs.